A lot of people also make functionally equivalent. Perhaps just a central table that has each patch, its latest revision date, its current status, etc. so people can differentiate between them.
Cris Daniluk
MicroStrategy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Guenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 5:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: humble suggestion from a confused boy
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 11:39:05PM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> > I know, none of the above problems are outrageous, but one can spend
> > considerable time on sorting out badly organized patches.
> (Sorry, for
> > picking on the big-todo patc, but I still do not know, which one is
> > the latest, www.qmail.org's or Bruce G's.)
>
> It's certainly not mine -- I had no hand in creating this
> useful piece.
> Whatever the qmail site points to should be authoritative for
> this one.
>
> As far as versioning goes, it would probably be more useful to
> date-stamp unversioned patches, to at least identify at what date the
> patch originated. This way, one could identify chronological order at
> least.
> --
> Bruce Guenter, QCC Communications Corp. EMail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: (306)249-0220 WWW:
http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/
